<div dir="ltr"><div>OK.. I just figure that if this is the only form of Matrix that we need to support, there is no need to qualify the object name to be 2D.</div><div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:11 AM Laurent MICHEL <<a href="mailto:laurent.michel@astro.unistra.fr">laurent.michel@astro.unistra.fr</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
Le 03/04/2020 à 16:58, CresitelloDittmar, Mark a écrit :<br>
> Ah, I see..<br>
> You're suggesting we need to support MxNxP matrices (or more).<br>
No, this was just an example to illustrate what I was saying.<br></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
> I think an earlier version of the model had an abstract Matrix, with <br>
> Matrix2D.. we could go back to that, allowing for Matrix3D, etc extensions.<br>
> Or forgo the abstract head and just rename it.<br>
In the model, Matrix clearly refers to a 2D matrix.<br>
Regarding the model scope, there is no need for matrices of whatever <br>
dimension, therefore there is non need for any high level of abstraction.<br>
I suggest Matrix2D(nb_cols, nb_rows)<br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
</blockquote></div></div>